Species Dominance, Artilects, Artilect War, Cosmists, Terrans, Gigadeath, Essays, Media, etc




One of the basic assumptions of MGTOW doctrine is that “Women don’t love men, but rather men’s exploitability.” This flyer asks a similar question concerning FIP (financially independent person) women. Given that FIP women do not need men’s resources, are they more capable of loving men, and what about “second halver” (i.e. people over 40) FIP women? Can they love men even more because they are over their “baby rabies” AND are FIP?

I still have real question marks about the capacity of women to love men. From my own experience I’ve been in situations where MGTOW ideas make sense, where they are applicable, and in other situations, where I have my doubts.

From a Darwinian evolutionary point of view, it makes perfect sense to me that women of a reproductive age look on men as exploitable assets, to be dumped coldly if the man loses his exploitability. So the core MGTOW ideas makes good sense in my judgement.  I can put myself in the shoes of my first wife (I’m now into my 4th), for example, and imagine how she must have felt.

She was a half fluffie. She didn’t study FIP majors at high school, so could only study fluffie crap majors (making her a “fluffie crapper”) at university. She chose philosophy. I was a PhD student at the time, and her nursing degree did not impress me. 3 times I broke with her, but she held on tenaciously until I realized there was a monthly pattern to her periodic cow like state that repelled me, which she lost once she got on the pill.

We started a kid once she got her philosophy degree and then I felt enslaved. I was supporting her to stay at home with HER kid, while I was working at a job that didn’t satisfy me at all, just to get money to pay for the three of us. I had no time for me, and I felt my “soul” was dying. After 11 years in Europe she gave me an ultimatum to return to Australia. Within 3 days of returning to Australia, where we both grew up, I realized I had made a major mistake, and then had to choose whether to leave her and the 2 kids or rot in anti-intellectual Australia. I decided to leave and returned to my beloved Brussels, the most cosmopolitan city on the planet, capitol of Europe, Nato headquarters, etc.

I was a real masculist by that time, having thought hard about the traditional male role of being the sole breadwinner. (This was in the early 80s). I expected my ex wife to be a FIP and pay for the two kids since she had taken them from me in the sense that if I had not returned to Australia with her, she would have left with them.

If she had been more FIP, instead of her initial nursing diploma, and her philosophy degree, and had been a doctor, that she had the intelligence for, but not the FIP mentality for, then she could have coped easily with the two kids on her own  MD money. Instead she then fluffied on another man, her previous boyfriend who was 15 years older than her and a surgeon with a high salary. She popped out two more kids with him to seal the bond she had with him, to keep him paying for her.

I just walked out the door on her. I was not going to tolerate that some female dictated to me how and where I wanted to  live. I was  utterly fed up with my bread winner role and wanted out. This woman has not contacted me in decades. She’s so unfamous, that I cant even get anything on her with the internet.

So, I use her as an example, of what a fluffie woman must feel like if she loses her manslave and she has kids. She was thrust into the role of the sole breadwinner once I returned to Europe. Her standard of living and that of her kids depended on her. But she was a fluffie and only earned a nurse’s salary, so her quality of life fell compared to what I had given her, so being a fluffie she probably blamed me for that fall in living standard rather than herself for not bothering to FIPup when she was a student.

So there is an objective reality that lies behind the existential fear that fluffies must feel when their manslave walks out on them. They become poor, and having a fluffie mentality, they put the blame for their situation outside themselves, rather than inward.

My sister, on the other hand is a real economic success. She is definitely a FIP career wise having become a doctor and even having her own clinic with two dozen other doctors in her employment. Yet even she still has fluffie attitudes when it comes to men and to me in particular. She thinks still that I should have paid my first wife for the kids after I left (or she left, depending on your perspective.)

This fluffie FIP of a sister I have, makes me wonder whether her fluffie attitudes are a result of traditional gender role conditioning that she grew up with (she’s now 60), or is it much deeper, more genetically based. I’m not sure. My attitude as a masculist is that it is today easier for a single mom to pay for herself and the kids than for the traditional man who paid for himself, the kids AND a parasitic wife. I expected my first ex-wife to be FIP and pay her own way. I escaped manslavery in returning to Europe, and thank god did not have to be financially massacred in a fluffie feminist dominated divorce court because I was living in another country. So there’s a lesson here. If you’re thinking of leaving your fluffie parasitic wife, and don’t want to be financially massacred, emigrate.

A young woman of reproductive age, has to do two main things, traditionally speaking – one, she has to find some manslave she can parasite on, to pay for the kids, and two, she has to fuck him and be nice to him long enough that he sticks around and has kids with her.

It must be scary being a fluffie. If your man walks out and you have kids, and if there were no fluffie feminist divorce court system to force your manslave to remain a manslave, then you could end up destitute. That’s scary. I understand that. Of course, the solution to this fear is that all women be raised to be FIPs, that society places powerful expectations on women to be FIPs, or they just wont get a man.

I suspect there may be two aspects to women’s fear of losing her manslave. One is objective, i.e. she will lose income, so may become poor. The other is probably genetic, i.e. she has evolved to expect a man to pay for her. Just how much this is true is difficult to determine, so I would very much like to see a new branch of gender studies be created that tries to determine to what extent women’s expectation that men pay for them, is due to objective, practical reasons, or due to inherited genetic reasons, based on a million years of evolution.

Now, to deal with the second halver women, and FIP women, and even second halver FIP women.

A FIP woman, by definition, is financially independent, so she should have less fear in losing her man. She can cope financially herself with her own income. Being FIP for her is liberating in that sense. Its also liberating for men, who then become freed from the traditional manslavery role of paying for women. So are FIP women more capable of loving men rather than only men’s exploitability? This is an interesting question, that needs to be studied scientifically by psychologists.

From my own experience, I feel I have been truly loved by a second halver FIP woman.

In my 5 years in the US, I e-dated a string of women, nearly all of them incompatible, but they were the best of a poor crop. Its not easy finding women of comparable intellectual and performance level when you’re a male PhDed professor. The last woman I dated before leaving for China (I didn’t like the religious lack of sophistication of colonial middle class America) was a PhD and actually nice. She went out of her way, to be nice and I don’t think she was acting. She had no baby rabies, because she was post menopausal and retired. She was obviously FIP, with her own house, car and more than adequate income. She just wanted the companionship of a man and regular orgasms.

One of my major criticisms of MGTOW is what might be called the “MGTOW first-halver bias” i.e. most MGTOWs are first halvers (under 40) so are confronted with women in the baby rabies stage of life and hungry to have men who can help pay her to raise kids.

Second halver women can no longer reproduce, and if they are FIPs, don’t need a man for money. They want a man for companionship and orgasms. So can such women love men? I would say yes. When I left the US for China a decade ago, this woman was quite hurt. She said she had grown very attached to me. It was the best of my relationships I had in the US (of a string of them). If I had stayed I could have kept up that relationship for years, but since China was my 7th country I had learned the lesson, if the main values of a culture piss you off, then migrate. I hated the religious middle class mindlessness of the US, after two decades in Europe and one decade in Japan.

So I feel that MGTOW ideas are more applicable to first halver men and less so to second halver men. Women are far less parasitic in their second half of life. Their priorities shift. They want companionship and orgasms, rather than a man’s salary.

MGTOW raises some interesting hypotheses about female nature, but the movement is so new, that its scientific basis is still very shaky and needs to be tested.


Prof. Dr. Hugo de Garis


%d bloggers like this: